Re: OT: OS definition thread
Hi, On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 10:16:13:PM -0700 Rob 'Feztaa' Park wrote: Alas! Rocco Rutte spake thus: In Computer Science I spent two terms on creating a website on something dealing with new media (okay, surfing all the time and hacking it together in 1/2 day before deadline). Others students have to write web pages with Word and do some 'office' with Works. Again: what to expect? Computer Science? You mean, university level computer science? You try to fool me? ;-) They teach you to use MSWord at university? No! I was writing about schools. At _school_ others were told how to use Word and Works. Our teacher really asked us what we want to do the last two two years in Computer Science. So we decided _not_ to learn how to use MS Office. Get your money back, you were cheated! Any idiot can use Word with no training. To spend money on learning this is nothing more than a waste. ... of time, too. Cheers, Rocco. msg26411/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: OT: OS definition thread
30-Mar-02 at 10:26, Rocco Rutte ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote : No! I was writing about schools. At _school_ others were told how to use Word and Works. Our teacher really asked us what we want to do the last two two years in Computer Science. So we decided _not_ to learn how to use MS Office. The only courses that should teach how to use MS Office are secretarial courses. Anyone with an ounce of computer sense will be doing something far more interesting than what we used to call typesetting. Computer courses should teach about computers, not some proprietary software guff. Doesn't have to be programming, but how about file systems, and troubleshooting procedures? That is where the world at large is sadly lacking... -- [Simon White. vim/mutt. [EMAIL PROTECTED] GIMPS:60.41% see www.mersenne.org] When the bosses talk about improving productivity, they are never talking about themselves. [Linux user #170823 http://counter.li.org. Home cooked signature rotator.]
Re: OT: OS definition thread
Hi, On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 10:36:41:AM + Simon White wrote: Computer courses should teach about computers, not some proprietary software guff. Doesn't have to be programming, but how about file systems, and troubleshooting procedures? Troubleshooting is part of what I think makes most sence. Everybody should learn how to help yourself, including how to gain knowledge, searching for information and stuff like that. Just fundamental things of how to get used to a certain environment on your own. The Windows GUI-only knowledge doesn't help a lot if 'vi' (or edit.com) is the only tool someone has to make the GUI working. Mice won't help a lot if you have to edit config files to make the mouse working... Btw, I often see that former DOS users are having much less trouble to get used to Unix and shells than Windows users. Cheers, Rocco. msg26413/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Display Error Redux
Hi, I should have done this earlier, but I finally went through my mutt.rc line by line to see why I have display problems. It boils down to these two lines: - - - Schnipp - - - set pgp_verify_command=gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --verify %s %f set pgp_getkeys_command=gpg --no-secmem-warning --no-verbose --batch --with-colons --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys %r - - - Schnapp - - - With only the first line, all works well; with both lines, the display is corrupted whenever Mutt verifies a signature, even with keys I already have in my keychain. I neither see anything wrong with the second line, nor do I understand why $pgp_getkeys_command is called for verifying a signature. Do you have any ideas? tia, Thorsten -- The history of Liberty is a history of the limitation of government power. - Woodrow Wilson
Re: Display Error Redux
On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 01:33:36PM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote: set pgp_verify_command=gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --verify %s %f set pgp_getkeys_command=gpg --no-secmem-warning --no-verbose --batch --with-colons --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys %r [...] I neither see anything wrong with the second line, nor do I understand why $pgp_getkeys_command is called for verifying a signature. Do you have any ideas? The second line seems pretty strange to me. The keyserver should be placed in ~/.gnupg/options to make it available to all apps and not only Mutt. If everything works (except display corruption) you may wish to direct the output to /dev/null. The statistics about imported keys is still placed above the message. I only have: set pgp_getkeys_command=gpg --batch --recv-keys %r /dev/null 21 HTH, Cheers, Rocco.
Re: Display Error Redux
Rocco Rutte ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 01:33:36PM +0100, Thorsten Haude wrote: set pgp_verify_command=gpg --no-verbose --quiet --batch -o - --verify %s %f set pgp_getkeys_command=gpg --no-secmem-warning --no-verbose --batch --with-colons --keyserver wwwkeys.pgp.net --recv-keys %r The second line seems pretty strange to me. The keyserver should be placed in ~/.gnupg/options to make it available to all apps and not only Mutt. I only have: set pgp_getkeys_command=gpg --batch --recv-keys %r /dev/null 21 I just have a keyserver in my options file and pgp_getkeys_command= gpg will fetch any key not in your keyring from the keyserver. No need to specify pgp_getkeys_command. Works like charm. HTH, Michael -- I did this 'cause Linux gives me a woody. It doesn't generate revenue. (Dave '-ddt-` Taylor, announcing DOOM for Linux) PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key msg26418/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Display Error Redux
On Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 02:11:21PM +0100, Michael Tatge wrote: Rocco Rutte ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: I only have: set pgp_getkeys_command=gpg --batch --recv-keys %r /dev/null 21 I just have a keyserver in my options file and pgp_getkeys_command= gpg will fetch any key not in your keyring from the keyserver. No need to specify pgp_getkeys_command. Works like charm. When displaying a message, yes. Documentation says it's used whenever Mutt need information about a public key. So I don't know wether other situations may occur. This seems not to be the case. After looking at the sample rc files comming with mutt, it seems that it is only required for pgp6 users. Maybe drop a note somewhere? Cheers, Rocco
Re: Display Error Redux
Hi, * Michael Tatge [EMAIL PROTECTED] [02-03-30 14:11]: I just have a keyserver in my options file and pgp_getkeys_command= gpg will fetch any key not in your keyring from the keyserver. No need to specify pgp_getkeys_command. Works like charm. Works like a charm, right. Thank you very much! Thorsten -- Death to all fanatics!
gpg multible keyrings
Hi all! I'd like to have an extra keyring for this list. I can set folder-hooks to set $pgp_* varibles, but how do I tell gpg which key to use? There is the --keyring option, but as the man page said it only introduces a new keyring to gpg. TIA, Michael -- I once witnessed a long-winded, month-long flamewar over the use of mice vs. trackballs...It was very silly. (By Matt Welsh) PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key
Re: gpg multible keyrings
begin quoting what Michael Tatge said on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 02:43:12PM +0100: I'd like to have an extra keyring for this list. What problem are you trying to solve? msg26422/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: gpg multible keyrings
Shawn McMahon ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: begin quoting what Michael Tatge said on Sat, Mar 30, 2002 at 02:43:12PM +0100: I'd like to have an extra keyring for this list. What problem are you trying to solve? Seems to work now. I forgot to use --keyring in $pgp_verify_command. Thanx, Michael -- Oh, I've seen copies [of Linux Journal] around the terminal room at The Labs. (By Dennis Ritchie) PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key
Re: PGP signing (newbie)
John Buttery [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: (Sorry, that it took quite a while for me to reply -- I'm always slow on these things...) Well, here's my two cents for you to add to the stuff you're reading up on. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. :-) I encrypt every message I can (which isn't many yet, *sigh*), sign all private mail except to the really militant dissenters (i.e. users of a particular version of Eudora that actually locks up trying to read the message...), and sign all list mail. Well yeah, after Feztaa demonstrated the spoofing of an email address, I begun to sign *every* mail, as well. It actually was *pretty* scary to see me -- my email address and signature -- writing that shit; for a second I even thought I was hallucinating. ;-) What comes to encrypting, that I haven't done yet (except testing it). But I know, that it's definitely coming in use one day, as some of the mails I send, are pretty damn personal and if a mail like that would end up in wrong hands... ah well, I don't even want to think about it. My own reasons for signing all list mail are thus: 1) It increases awareness of cryptography as a mainstream utility. Sometimes people ask me about it, maybe others silently look it up on the web or consult their local nerd resource. :) This is kinda a minor reason though. This is actually pretty good point. And I agree, cryptography should, indeed, be brought before the eyes of every data communicator, or better; every computer user whatsoever -- as it is said, you can't be too careful. Now let me just explicitly say that what I'm about to describe is _not_ (there's that super-sized emphasis again) a substitute for actual signatures on a key. This is just a suggestion for a second-best procedure... By signing all public mail, I am creating a far-flung paper trail on the web and in people's mailboxes of all my signed email. What this means is, that if someone gets a message that's signed by a key with my name on it but has no sigs that they themselves trust, they can consult something like Google and find its archive of 2.3 to the power of spork messages that are signed by my public key. They can then say, OK, whoever signed this message also signed all those other messages. A careful examination of a cross-section of those messages may give them some clue, maybe through speech patterns etc, that the person from all those messages is the same one who sent the email they now have in their inbox. Again, it's not a substitute for actual web-of-trust sigs, but it does at least a little good in a pinch. Just the fact that there are a zillion things out there with my sig lends it credence; after all, it would take a lot of motivation for someone to bother creating a fake key and then manually composing all those messages over the course of time just to fake someone out. Yeah, you are right. Once you've sort of shown, that you sign every goddamn mail you send, at least people should be alert, if they receive a message without signing from an address which implies the one you have. Then they can more easily deduct, that the mail they got, can be or *probably* is spoofed. As you sign every mail, people will learn that and they know to expect a signed mail from *you*. I hope you get my point; I'm a bit tired and dizzy at the moment, and my thoughts are pretty slow tonight... Oh, and of course I also sign just to keep Rob from forging my email. :) LOL! It was scary, now wasn't it?:-) still haven't fixed the sig rotation script. Once you have, could you let me know -- I'd be interested too. :-) -- Jussi Ekholm [EMAIL PROTECTED] | Jesus is on opium, Jesus needs a fix, http://erppimaa.cjb.net/~ekhowl/ | Singing love, brother love, ekh @ IRCNet | Singing love, brother love... msg26428/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
disable UIDL
Hi list, After unsuccessfully searching the manuals, mutt.org, the archives and google about this subject, i ask for your help: My POP3 server does not support UIDL (unique ID listing) and because of that mutt can not fetch my mail. How can i disable UIDL in mutt? I don't need this feature since i leave no messages on server. thanks for your assistence, Guilherme __ Guilherme Menegon ArantesSao Paulo, Brasil __
Re: Mutt ignoring 'From ' lines in mailbox - Content-Length?
* James Greenwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-30 17:05]: I have recently switched from Pine to Mutt and I have several mailboxes that open fine in Pine but not in Mutt. Mutt seems to concatenate some of the messages together so that there are fewer messages in the index... Are there any Content-Length lines? If so - delete them. It's easy with vi: $ vi ~/Mail/folder :g/^Content-Length:$/d :x $ mutt -f ~/Mail/folder Does it work now? .. how can I re-order an existing mailbox file by date so that the file itself changes, rather than doing it dynamically (and slowly on a large mailbox) every time the mailbox is opened? Tag all messages and the save them to a new file (folder). T tag-pattern . all (contains at least some character) ; tag-prefix (applies following command to all tagges messages) C copy-message +NEW foldername NEW The folder NEW (usually ~/Mail/NEW) should now contain all the messages in the current order. To change the order use 'o' (sort-mailbox) - before copying/saving the messages to a new folder. have fun! :-) Sven -- Sven Guckes http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/mutt/setup.html Mutt setup from scratch, Sven's sample setup; attribution, limit, list vs subscribe, histories, mailcap, POP, hooks, use of external pagers, troubleshooting, adding header lines, from Mozilla to Mutt.
Re: disable UIDL - fetchmail?
* Guilherme Menegon [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-30 19:02]: My POP3 server does not support UIDL (unique ID listing) and because of that mutt can not fetch my mail. How can i disable UIDL in mutt? I don't need this feature since i leave no messages on server. well, if you are sure that mutt cannot do something then why do you want a solution with mutt? ;-) I'd say set pop_delete=yes - but will that help? Have you considered downloading your mails with fetchmail yet? Sven -- Sven [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mutt-versions] Latest versions: MUTT http://www.mutt.org/ news:comp.mail.mutt mutt-1.2.5 [000729] MUTT http://www.math.fu-berlin.de/~guckes/mutt/ mutt-1.3.28 [020313] MUTT MUTT - *the* mailer for UNIX with color, threading, IMAP+MIME+PGP+POP
Re: X-Mailer header
Michael, et al -- ...and then Michael Tatge said... % % John Buttery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) muttered: % * Sven Guckes [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2002-03-29 22:27:02 +0100]: % Sven [and *dont* touch indent_prefix or sigdashes!] % %Actually, isn't the prefix supposed to be whereas mutt uses % by default? % % NO. It's Period. Please don't make a new OT thread out of this, % especially you David. ;-) I was trying *so* hard not to get involved! Arrrgh; now you've done it. % % Michael % -- % PGP-Key: http://www-stud.ims.uni-stuttgart.de/~tatgeml/public.key ObTopic: I personally feel that X-Mailer should be available just like every X-anything-else, but I don't care much more than that. HAND :-D -- David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles (play) [EMAIL PROTECTED] * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie (work) [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg! msg26433/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
